Temporal Subtraction Versus Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Pilot Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5116)


In contrast-enhanced DBT (CE-DBT), breast lesion vascularity is characterized by administrating an iodinated vascular contrast agent. In this work, a combined temporal and dual-energy (DE) subtraction CE-DBT technique was performed in 4 women with mammographic findings that warranted biopsy. Lesion enhancement characteristics and morphology obtained with both CE-DBT techniques are correlated to lesion enhancement characteristics and morphology obtained with CE-MRI. The findings are compared to the clinical outcome of the regular DBT exam. Preliminary results show that both temporal and DE CE-DBT provide morphologic and qualitative vascular information concordant with CE-MRI. Temporal subtraction is the most sensitive method since background breast tissue can be completely canceled while with DE CE-DBT tissue background can only be partially canceled. However, the temporal CE-DBT image data suffer from significantly more motion artifacts and therefore possible misdiagnosis.


Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Dual Energy Subtraction Temporal Subtraction vascular contrast agent 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weidner, N., Semple, J.P., Welch, W.R., Folkman, J.: Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis: correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine 324, 1–8 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, S.C., Carton, A.-K., Albert, M., Conant, E.F., Schnall, M.D., Maidment, A.D.A.: Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis. Academic Radiology 14, 229–238 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Puong, S., Patoureaux, F., Iordache, R., Muller, S.: Dual-energy contrast enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis: concept, method, and evaluation on phantoms. In: Hsieh, J., Flynn, M.J. (eds.) Proc. Medical Imaging 2007: Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. 6510. SPIE, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carton, A.K., Lindman, K., Ullberg, C.K., Francke, T.: Dual-energy subtraction for contrast enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis. In: Hsieh, J., Flynn, M.J. (eds.) Proc. Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. 6510. SPIE, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boone, J.M.: Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Medical Physics 29(5), 869–875 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schnall, M.D., Blume, J., Bluemke, D.A., DeAngelis, G.A., DeBruhl, N., Harms, S., Heywang-Köbrunner, S.H., Hylton, N.M., Kuhl, C.K., Pisano, E.D., Causer, P., Schnitt, S.J., Thickman, D., Stelling, C.B., Weatherall, P.T., Lehman, C., Gatsonis, C.A.: Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 238(1), 42–53 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. RadiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations